Tracys technique discussion...

[Flying Crane]

Can't let the EPAK people have all the fun. We should be having some of our own discussions. So here goes:

Sowing the Seeds - Green #16
Slashing Cougar - First Brown #26
Leveling the Clouds - Second Brown #4

All defenses against a punch from 12:00, and all begin identically. Their primary difference is in how they finish the opponent.

In my opinion, this kind of repetition is not necessary. If you understand the initial defense, you should be able to adjust and finish the opponent however you see fit.

Does anyone see a reason to maintain separate techs like these, when they are so similar? Would it make more sense to combine them into one basic tech and simply explore different finishing options based on variations in the scenario?

Any thoughts are welcome.

 

[Doc]

Can't let the EPAK people have all the fun. We should be having some of our own discussions. So here goes:

Sowing the Seeds - Green #16
Slashing Cougar - First Brown #26
Leveling the Clouds - Second Brown #4

All defenses against a punch from 12:00, and all begin identically. Their primary difference is in how they finish the opponent.

In my opinion, this kind of repetition is not necessary. If you understand the initial defense, you should be able to adjust and finish the opponent however you see fit.

Does anyone see a reason to maintain separate techs like these, when they are so similar? Would it make more sense to combine them into one basic tech and simply explore different finishing options based on variations in the scenario?

Any thoughts are welcome.

Well good old Al wanted to boast he had more techniques than you-know-who, so he made every slight variation possible into a separate technique. Now I have never understood Al's compulsion to separate and "out do" Parker. In my opinion the works of Al Tracy have always stood on their own as significant accomplishments - but whatthehell, that's Big AL.

 

[Jim Hanna]

Its a matter of learning protocol. Within the Tracy's curriculum a student is given many concrete examples that illustrate possible solutions to self defense scenarios. Redundancy is a valid and worthwhile teaching tool.

For example, one can study poetry in an effort to learn how to write poetry. So, you learn about iambic pentameter by studying one poem. Then you learn about alliteration in another poem, etc.

Eventually you have all the concepts and rules of poetry and can explain them quite fluently.

But you still can't write a poem. You have developed the understanding but not the ear. You develop the ear by reading several poems in iambic pentameter, etc.

My kenpo has a poetic quality to it. It has an instinct that is not easily defined through science, just like many of the other chinese martial arts.

Regardlessly, whether your kenpo is "concrete example based" or "concept driven" it is still a lifelong endeavor. There are no shortcuts.

Jim

 

[Dave Simmons]

Its a matter of learning protocol. Within the Tracy's curriculum a student is given many concrete examples that illustrate possible solutions to self defense scenarios. Redundancy is a valid and worthwhile teaching tool.

For example, one can study poetry in an effort to learn how to write poetry. So, you learn about iambic pentameter by studying one poem. Then you learn about alliteration in another poem, etc.

Eventually you have all the concepts and rules of poetry and can explain them quite fluently.

But you still can't write a poem. You have developed the understanding but not the ear. You develop the ear by reading several poems in iambic pentameter, etc.

My kenpo has a poetic quality to it. It has an instinct that is not easily defined through science, just like many of the other chinese martial arts.

Regardlessly, whether your kenpo is "concrete example based" or "concept driven" it is still a lifelong endeavor. There are no shortcuts.

Jim

Jim very nice analogy!

Doc's comment made me look up an old typed up technique manual. The manual was compilated by Jim Travino (San Jose dojo) there are 40 techniques per level. Travino's manual is 1965. At that time Tracy's was still in the Parker organization. The dojo was in the KKA.

 

[Doc]

Its a matter of learning protocol. Within the Tracy's curriculum a student is given many concrete examples that illustrate possible solutions to self defense scenarios. Redundancy is a valid and worthwhile teaching tool.

For example, one can study poetry in an effort to learn how to write poetry. So, you learn about iambic pentameter by studying one poem. Then you learn about alliteration in another poem, etc.

Eventually you have all the concepts and rules of poetry and can explain them quite fluently.

But you still can't write a poem. You have developed the understanding but not the ear. You develop the ear by reading several poems in iambic pentameter, etc.

My kenpo has a poetic quality to it. It has an instinct that is not easily defined through science, just like many of the other chinese martial arts.

Regardlessly, whether your kenpo is "concrete example based" or "concept driven" it is still a lifelong endeavor. There are no shortcuts.

Jim

Well we don't disagree Jim.

 

[Doc]

Jim very nice analogy!

Doc's comment made me look up an old typed up technique manual. The manual was compilated by Jim Travino (San Jose dojo) there are 40 techniques per level. Travino's manual is 1965. At that time Tracy's was still in the Parker organization. The dojo was in the KKA.

That was during the period when Parker had virtually made the split and Parker had turned over the KKA to the 'yudanshakai' and transitioned to the beginning of his first Chinese, than 'American Perspective.' This is when he dropped all the foreign language references, while Al continued using terms like 'dojo,' 'dan rankings,' etc. while Parker issued 'degrees.' Parker never had more than 32 techniques per belt. Al chose to maintain a Japanese tradition so he placed himself in the Mitose Lineage while Parker was first Chinese and then American in his philosophy. Given good teachers, neither is better than the other, and I still stand by my comment that Al did great things on his own, but was always trying to 'outdo' and get out of the shadow of Ed Parker. I have some of those Tracy 'manuals' somewhere. They were essentially just cliff notes of techniques with sometimes four or five 'techniques' on one page. These 'manuals' actually preceded much of the later Parker material.

 

[KenpoDave]

Can't let the EPAK people have all the fun. We should be having some of our own discussions. So here goes:

Sowing the Seeds - Green #16
Slashing Cougar - First Brown #26
Leveling the Clouds - Second Brown #4

All defenses against a punch from 12:00, and all begin identically. Their primary difference is in how they finish the opponent.

In my opinion, this kind of repetition is not necessary. If you understand the initial defense, you should be able to adjust and finish the opponent however you see fit.

Does anyone see a reason to maintain separate techs like these, when they are so similar? Would it make more sense to combine them into one basic tech and simply explore different finishing options based on variations in the scenario?

Any thoughts are welcome.

Not everyone will explore all the finishing options. Maintaining them as separate techniques sort of mandates that they do.

Here is a similar theory...kenpo is known among other martial arts as a "weak" kicking style. Right or wrong, that is the opinion. My instructor created a separate kicking curriculum, and added it to the belt charts. In the Tracy System, his students and their schools are known as top kickers.

All those kicks already exist. But, not everyone explores them.

 

[Dave Simmons]

That was during the period when Parker had virtually made the split and Parker had turned over the KKA to the 'yudanshakai' and transitioned to the beginning of his first Chinese, than 'American Perspective.' This is when he dropped all the foreign language references, while Al continued using terms like 'dojo,' 'dan rankings,' etc. while Parker issued 'degrees.' Parker never had more than 32 techniques per belt. Al chose to maintain a Japanese tradition so he placed himself in the Mitose Lineage while Parker was first Chinese and then American in his philosophy. Given good teachers, neither is better than the other, and I still stand by my comment that Al did great things on his own, but was always trying to 'outdo' and get out of the shadow of Ed Parker. I have some of those Tracy 'manuals' somewhere. They were essentially just cliff notes of techniques with sometimes four or five 'techniques' on one page. These 'manuals' actually preceded much of the later Parker material.

The fact is that GM Parker relied on his black belts to retain and store the Kenpo techniques etc. The original techniques were 40 later revised to 32 by Parker. Gm Tracy has everything recorded...not cliff notes but filmed and so forth.

 

[Flying Crane]

Any thoughts on the techniques themselves? Do ya like 'em? Do ya not like 'em? why or why not?

Personally, I like the basic "Arm Hook" initial movement. I do the defense a bit like a Taun Sau from Wing Chun, but it's very similar to how I was taught to do it in Tracys. I do like the different finishing portions of some of these techs. Regardless of my thoughts on the repetious nature of the techs, over all I think this "family" of techs contain some solid ideas.

Input?

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Has anybody else heard the "Al Tracy dies and goes to heaven" joke?

Regards,

Me.

 

[Daremo_23]

Has anybody else heard the "Al Tracy dies and goes to heaven" joke?

Regards,

Me.

i like a good joke, please enlighten me(us).....

 

[MJS]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation on topic.

-Mike Slosek
-MT Super Moderator-

 

[KenpoDave]

Any thoughts on the techniques themselves? Do ya like 'em? Do ya not like 'em? why or why not?

Personally, I like the basic "Arm Hook" initial movement. I do the defense a bit like a Taun Sau from Wing Chun, but it's very similar to how I was taught to do it in Tracys. I do like the different finishing portions of some of these techs. Regardless of my thoughts on the repetious nature of the techs, over all I think this "family" of techs contain some solid ideas.

Input?

I like 'em. Almost all of them. There are very few techniques in the system that I just don't like, but I do find value in them.

Regarding the Arm Hook "family," you have hit here on the idea of repetition, in my opinion. Separating them out forces each "separate technique" to be worked on it's own merit before being integrated into the "family group," so to speak.

I have found, over the years, that many techniques fit into more than one grouping, and fear that teaching them from that perspective may limit the student's ability to see the broader picture.

The criticism fro Doc is that Al Tracy was trying to create more and more to outdo Parker, yet, Doc also mentions that Ed Parker took alot of techniques out of "original kenpo" in order to make his system more of a concept driven curriculum. An argument could be made that Al Tracy preserved what Ed Parker deleted, resulting in Tracy's having "more."

Back to the repetitious nature of the Tracy System...another critique from Doc about AK is the "motion kenpo" thing. Seems to me that Ed Parker may have pared his system down to what he thought was necessary to teach the concepts, yet many instructors of the style use the curriculum and teach it as a concrete example style.

My critique is that this seems to cause many to simply spin their wheels interpreting and re-interpreting Ed Parker's stuff vs. exploring kenpo. They seem to be "stuck in the books." The same, I'm sure, can be said of some Tracy's instructors, but many that I know have evolved to a more concept driven approach using the Tracy curriculum as a base.

Which, I think, ought to be the point. I think any good, complete system ought to allow it's practitioners to evolve beyond the confines of the structure while at the same time, providing solid, effective, "complete" teaching for those who don't.

 

[Jim Hanna]

I like this family of techniques. Its really difficult to discuss on a forum because we all need to be out on the floor, working and then discussing. Otherwise you end up with a short doctoral thesis post, which is generally too verbose for me.

I've heard it said that when Mr Parker was asked about a technique, he would respond: "show me how you do it".

One of the tips that I picked up from Mr Tracy, when he was asked the same question, was: "lets get out on the mats and see".

If you (the reader) know the missing sections of Book Set, you will see the "seizing hands" and "accelerating parries", that are illustrated in the techniques of this topic...more repetition, more redundancy. I love it.

Jim

 

[HKphooey]

Can't let the EPAK people have all the fun. We should be having some of our own discussions. So here goes:

Sowing the Seeds - Green #16
Slashing Cougar - First Brown #26
Leveling the Clouds - Second Brown #4

All defenses against a punch from 12:00, and all begin identically. Their primary difference is in how they finish the opponent.

In my opinion, this kind of repetition is not necessary. If you understand the initial defense, you should be able to adjust and finish the opponent however you see fit.

Does anyone see a reason to maintain separate techs like these, when they are so similar? Would it make more sense to combine them into one basic tech and simply explore different finishing options based on variations in the scenario?

Any thoughts are welcome.

I have always like these techniques and do not see them as redundant. It is just another way to skin a "cat" Pardon the pun. Tracy Kenpo teaches the additional "what if" techniques while EPAK was pared down and the studeent was taught to explore the "What if's" with their instructors and on their own. They are taught to graft their material to fit their needs.

Each teaching philosophy has its pros/cons and I think the type of student also determines the best teaching method.

As for the 3 specific techniques, I look at each one of them as what damage/control can be inflicted.

Just my opinion.

I like both.

 

[Sigung86]

Realistically, I think, regardless of which school of thought we come from, EPAK or Tracy, we each tend to develop a set of our own "favorite" techniques, perhaps even subconsciously, that we would use in a given situtation.

Getting back to the discussion at hand, I've always enjoyed, and used on, at least one occasion that I will admit to, Sowing the Seeds. It was quite a number of years ago, and I do not remember all the details, but I do recall that it was devastating and the knuckles on my left hand were sore for about a week thereafter. And so, Sowing the Seeds, became one of my burned in or favorite responses.

In the reality of the fight, with either system, unless one works out day in and day out, every day, for hours at a time, s/he is not going to ever be able to, reliably, pull out every variation in a real situation...

I sometimes wonder if a system of "limited" responses to given situations might not work as well? (See my post elsewhere regarding the original material that SGM Parker, and Chuck Sullivan put on film).

Just thoughts...

 

[fmusto]

Isn't sowing the seeds against a right punch and leveling the clouds against a left punch?

 

[HKphooey]

Isn't sowing the seeds against a right punch and leveling the clouds against a left punch?

After Form 4 you have both sides.

 

[Flying Crane]

Isn't sowing the seeds against a right punch and leveling the clouds against a left punch?

I've always done all techs on both sides.

 

[Sigung86]

In actual Tracy Karate, you should, ostensibly, be doing all your techniques from Yellow on up on both sides. There is great debate as to wether or not this is necessary, or even good for you, so to speak.

When I began training in the way back, we had to show proficiency with all the techniques on both sides. My question then, and still is, why do we need both left, and right side techniques if that is the case. Once again, fodder for some cannons (Michael, feel free to jump in here... LOL)

I think it has been shown that learning a technique on the right side and on the left requires two different parts of the brain, and one isn't as efficient as the other at doing this particular thing. Having said that, however, I am not clear on where I read this or the origin. Else, I would provide a link to it.

Please, anybody, feel free to clarify my muddled thoughts here.